The Bombay High Court has granted bail and suspended the sentence of an appellant convicted under the POCSO Act, primarily due to serious irregularities in the collection and handling of biological samples. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a credible chain of custody for the DNA evidence, rendering the forensic report unreliable. This decision underscores the non-negotiable requirement of procedural integrity in forensic evidence used in sexual offence prosecutions involving children.
The Verdict
The appellant won on interim relief. The Bombay High Court granted bail and suspended the 20-year sentence pending appeal, not on merits of acquittal, but because the prosecution failed to establish a verifiable chain of custody for DNA samples. The Court held that without proof of secure handling from collection to laboratory receipt, the DNA report cannot be relied upon for conviction. The appellant was released on a personal bond with surety.
Background & Facts
The appellant was convicted by the Special POCSO Court in Special Case No. 567 of 2021 for offences under Sections 376(i) and 363 of the IPC and Sections 3(a), 4(2), 5(j)(ii), and 6 of the POCSO Act. The conviction rested heavily on a DNA test report linking the appellant to the victim, a minor. The victim’s blood sample was collected on 27 July 2021, while the child’s sample was collected on 29 July 2021. Both samples were recorded as received by the Forensic Science Laboratory on 29 July 2021, raising immediate questions about the handling of the victim’s sample during the two-day gap.
The doctor who collected the samples, Dr. Patel (PW-9), admitted under cross-examination that she did not use a DNA kit during collection, a standard protocol for preserving evidentiary integrity. Crucially, no witness testified about the storage, transportation, or sealing of the samples between collection and receipt at the FSL. The prosecution offered no custody log, no seal records, and no chain-of-custody documentation. The Trial Court, however, accepted the DNA report as conclusive without addressing these gaps.
The appellant filed a criminal appeal and an interim application for bail and suspension of sentence. The State opposed bail, arguing the DNA report was reliable and the victim’s age was proven. The second respondent did not oppose bail.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a DNA test report in a POCSO prosecution can form the sole basis for conviction when there is no credible evidence establishing the uninterrupted chain of custody from sample collection to laboratory analysis.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the absence of a documented chain of custody created reasonable doubt under Section 101 of the Evidence Act. He cited the testimony of the Chemical Analyst, who confirmed the samples were received on the same day as the child’s collection, despite the victim’s sample being collected two days prior. He emphasized that Dr. Patel’s admission of not using a DNA kit violated standard forensic procedure under the National Forensic Science Policy. He relied on Supreme Court rulings in State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar and State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal that require strict compliance with evidentiary protocols in sexual offence cases.
For the Respondent
The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the DNA report was unchallenged in substance and that the victim’s age was corroborated by school records and medical examination. He argued that minor procedural lapses do not invalidate forensic evidence if the result is consistent with other evidence. He cited State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das, where the Court held that technical defects in sample handling do not automatically render evidence inadmissible if the result is trustworthy.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the State’s argument that reliability of the result alone suffices. It held that in POCSO cases, where the stakes are exceptionally high and the evidence often circumstantial, the integrity of the forensic process is not a mere technicality but a constitutional imperative under Article 21. The Court observed that the absence of any documentation regarding custody between 27 and 29 July 2021 created a real possibility of tampering, contamination, or substitution.
"The chain of custody is not a procedural formality; it is the very foundation upon which the probative value of forensic evidence rests. Without it, the report becomes speculative, not scientific."
The Court distinguished the State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das case, noting that in that matter, the chain of custody was documented and unchallenged. Here, the absence of any record, coupled with the doctor’s admission of non-compliance with DNA kit protocols, rendered the report legally insufficient. The Court emphasized that the POCSO Act, while intended to protect children, does not lower evidentiary standards - it demands higher scrutiny.
The Court further noted that the appellant had no prior criminal record and was not a flight risk. The victim’s non-opposition to bail, while not determinative, reinforced the Court’s view that the appeal had a substantial chance of success.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a binding precedent that in POCSO cases, DNA evidence without a documented, unbroken chain of custody is inadmissible as the sole basis for conviction. Prosecutors must now ensure that every step - from sample collection by a qualified medical officer, to sealing, storage, transportation, and laboratory receipt - is recorded and attested by a witness. Failure to do so will invite successful challenges under Section 164A of the CrPC and Section 45 of the Evidence Act.
Defence counsel can now confidently move for acquittal or bail on grounds of forensic procedural failure, even if the accused is otherwise suspected. Trial courts must now actively question the chain of custody during trial, rather than accepting forensic reports at face value. This decision also reinforces the need for mandatory training for medical personnel on POCSO-compliant evidence collection.
The ruling does not invalidate DNA evidence per se. It mandates that its reliability be proven through procedural rigor, not presumption. Practitioners must now treat forensic documentation as a pillar of the prosecution’s case, not an afterthought.
